SunXia wrote:I agree with this, the treatment of these women is horrific and downright disgusting and honestly, more needs to be done to protect them. Those stories and stories like it sadden me greatly that people would treat others like this. Only in August, Eastern European girls were rescued from trafficking.

While I agree Human Trafficking is wrong and exploitation is wrong, I don't know how anyone could consider it right, I still don't think the entirety of prostitution should be made illegal. Here it is illegal to pay for sex from someone who is being forced into it and other forms of pimping and such.

However, I have also heard of people and know people who have had pleasant experiences with prostitutes who are not existing like the dreary brothels uncovered by the police in August...

And more needs to be done to combat this, to protect the basic Human Rights of the people who are victims of Exploitation and Human Trafficking. That is definitely a problem that needs tackled of course.

Here's the thing. When it comes to practical policies, we are presented with a choice. We can have the libertarian German-Dutch model and all the problems that come with it (which includes, in every empirical instance, increases in human trafficking and abuse of women), or we can have the Nordic model which gets rid of a lot of those problems, by criminalising the buying of sex without criminalising prostitutes. I'm of the view that the Nordic model is superior in practically every way, at least when it comes to combatting human trafficking. The people who are supporting the German model are cutting off a very powerful tool-to-hand when it comes to combatting trafficking in women, and they are in fact making the problems worse.

Chris Hedges wrote:Sweden in 1999 criminalized the purchasing of sex. Norway and Iceland have done the same. The two responses—the German model and the so-called Nordic model—have had dramatically different effects. The German and Dutch approach normalizes and expands human trafficking and prostitution. The Nordic approach contains it. Sweden has cut street prostitution by half and freed many women from sexual slavery. Lakeman, citing the Nordic model, calls for criminalizing the buying, rather than the offering, of sexual services. Those whose bodies are being sold should not be punished, she said.

Since December the purchase of sex has been illegal in Canada. The Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons Act, or Bill C-36, criminalizes the purchase of sexual services and decriminalizes the sale of those services. It restricts the advertisement of sexual services and communication in public for the purpose of prostitution. But the law has triggered fierce opposition, and it faces threats of a legal challenge. The Ontario premier, the Vancouver Police Board, law enforcement officials and some other political bodies and politicians have announced they will not implement it. The New Democratic Party, Canada’s second-largest party, and the Liberal Party have said they will work for the legalization of prostitution. There is no guarantee that the law will hold as economic and sexual inequality widens across the globe.

“The global trade, particularly of Asian women, has been steadily worsened by the neoliberal policies of First World countries,” said Alice Lee, part of the Asian Women Coalition Ending Prostitution. “These policies are grounded in social disparities of race, class and gender. They create conditions that force poor women to migrate. Those who support legalizing prostitution often argue that trafficking is bad, but prostitution is acceptable. But trafficking and prostitution are inseparable.”

Emphasis mine. The activists who have the most experience dealing with trafficked women are in agreement on this - legalised prostitution regimes lead to increases in human trafficking. Every. Damn. Time. The ending of legalised solicitation is an issue where law-and-order conservatives can and should ally themselves with the radical left against the industries which peddle in human flesh, and it's an issue where practically every woman would benefit from the adoption of the Nordic model.

Some more blood, Chekov. The needle won't hurt, Chekov. Take off your shirt, Chekov. Roll over, Chekov. Breathe deeply, Chekov. Blood sample, Chekov! Marrow sample, Chekov! Skin sample, Chekov! If I live long enough... I'm going to run out of samples.

It's a good read and actually funny in places. The author, Erica Hoskins Mullenix, has the kind of views I tend to agree with, and sometimes wish more people had. Even though she discusses God, I think anyone who can generally say "I disagree with your faith, but understand and respect it", should be OK to read it without issue.

Marriage is such an outdated cultural norm that never applied historically, nor now. When first ideals of marriages came around, it was during a time when people got married right as they 'matured' (hit puberty), and it has never been a very effective tactic. And guess what, it doesn't work. Do you think Christians historically only had sex when they were married/with their wife? No, these traditions came around the time when Christians (and Greeks) believed that rape was the fault of the women (for "tempting" men with their beauty) and rape was not only common, but almost expected from soldiers. It's sick, and doesn't work, people are going to have sex, and guess what they should. I understand the romance behind sex after marriage( well.. not really, but I respect it), and if you believe it, than 100% i respect your decision, just don't push it on others and don't expect people to adhere to your beliefs.

What pisses me off the most especially is the huge difference in this topic when it comes to gender. I get that, obviously woman are at more risk, but guess what guys.. we now have ways of avoiding pregnancy, or STIs. Sex is a great way to connect with your partner, release tension, and have fun, as long as you are safe (or even unsafe if you want kids), and both parties consent 100%. Sex is a way more natural and biological way of connecting with your partner than kissing ffs. You can have sex with multiple people, break up from sexual relationships and move on, its just a part of life.

EDIT: People put too much emphasis on sex. Yes, it can be an emotional experience, it can also be one of pleasure, it really depends on how you perceive it and who you do it with. However, anything can be construed in this form, holding hands, kissing, staring at each other in the eyes, etc. etc..

sn't that exactly what sex without love is? It's transactional. It's capitalistic. 'Here's what I want and here's what I'm willing to negotiate with you for it.' You're looking to get the best deal - you're not concerned in the first instance with what the other person wants.

That's not what sex with love is. Sex with love is a gift, not a transaction. And, like all true gifts, it's not something you just take back whenever you like. Marriage is institutionally best-suited to fulfilling that, in that it ensures that two people give themselves to one another without reservation, without time limits, without exceptions, without strings attached, in fair weather and foul.

Again, these are ideal types. There are exploitative marriages - even brutally exploitative ones - and there are long-lasting relationships outside marriage that end up being quite healthy. But again, marriage is the best, most whole and most thoroughgoing social context for such relationships to take place.

wtf? No? You can say that about every friggin thing in life. You can say me saying hey to a man is 'transactional' because i want him to say hey back to me. Of course you're concerned with what the other person wants, you're wandering if she'd want to have sex with you, just like when you first talk to a girl (with sex completely off your mind), and you want her to talk to you. Love is exactly the same thing, you want her to love you, so does that make it transactional? If she doens't love you back, its ok, because you love her, and same thing with sex, if she doesn't want to have sex with you, that's ok, maybe she'll want to be friends, or just move on. It's not a bad thing to have the urge to have sex.

Marriage is a piece of paper that holds as much weight as you want it to, simple as that. An artificially created contract by people several thousand years ago, who as i stated before didn't give a crap, and got married when they turned puberty. If you want to use that as your way of life, that's great! Honestly as much as I crap on marriage, it does have its upsides and adhering to it might be better for some people.I personally still do believe in marriage in a sense that I probably will wait until marriage to have kids (something not a lot of my friends would wait f0r) But YOU can create you're own way of life, and put weight whatever you want to. You can artificially put emphasis on kissing, or whatever feels right to you. However, for most people, marriage is completely wrong for their lifestyle (esp. given our lifestyle). You and your significant other can have a wholesome relationship (and many do) with or without marriage but again, SEX HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH IT.

It is curious that the Americans, who calculate so carefully on the possibilities of military victory, do not realize that in the process they are incurring deep psychological and political defeat.

Jebusrocks wrote:Marriage is such an outdated cultural norm that never applied historically, nor now.

Um... Whisky-Tango-Foxtrot, dude? Does this even make sense?

How can something that 'never applied historically, nor now', even be a 'cultural norm'? Especially an 'outdated' one?

Jebusrocks wrote:When first ideals of marriages came around, it was during a time when people got married right as they 'matured' (hit puberty), and it has never been a very effective tactic. And guess what, it doesn't work.

Okay, so marriage is a 'tactic' now, not a 'norm'? So what's the goal? How can you tell if it 'doesn't work'?

Jebusrocks wrote:Do you think Christians historically only had sex when they were married/with their wife?

Most of them? Yes, absolutely. Especially if they were poor. If they were rich, they would go buy prostitutes or sleep with courtesans. But marriage still had a purpose for those men in ensuring that the children born to their wives had guaranteed social status and legal support from their fathers.

Did many Christians during Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages have sex before marriage? Probably. We can't know for sure, but if mediaeval poetry is any indication, it was at least expected even if frowned-upon. Many of them probably had 'shotgun' weddings also because they knocked up their partners. But for the most part faithfulness was expected and poor people tended to follow it. If for no other reason than that they needed their wives as mutual work partners on the farm and in the shop as well as for sex, and because economically they couldn't support a mistress or hire a prostitute.

Jebusrocks wrote:No, these traditions came around the time when Christians (and Greeks) believed that rape was the fault of the women (for "tempting" men with their beauty) and rape was not only common, but almost expected from soldiers.

a.) This isn't logically connected at all to your previous statements.

b.) Um, no. This is just plain ignorant.

In Byzantium a man committing adultery got twelve lashes. Having consensual sex with an unmarried woman got him six. Banging a nun or a daughter- or mother-in-law got his nose mutilated. Homosexual sex got him castrated. Incest and rape got him decapitated. Women and children who were victims (and not willing perpetrators) of sexual crime were usually let off. Similar laws prevailed in Germany and England. Rape was most definitely considered the fault of the man in the Middle Ages.

Jebusrocks wrote:I understand the romance behind sex after marriage( well.. not really, but I respect it), and if you believe it, than 100% i respect your decision, just don't push it on others and don't expect people to adhere to your beliefs.

a.) If you don't understand it, then who the hell gave you the authority to pass judgement on it?

b.) Actually, yeah, we can and we will. Eventually.

At some point in the future, I'm predicting there's going to be something of a children's rights revolution. And that revolution is going to come from children who don't want to be raised as functional wards of the state, or accessories in contractual relationships which haven't been structurally organised to give them any legal rights or support. Marriage, regardless of the way it has been abused in the past, has historically functioned for the legal, economic and social support of children. And for the most part it's been effective at that.

Jebusrocks wrote:What pisses me off the most especially is the huge difference in this topic when it comes to gender. I get that, obviously woman are at more risk, but guess what guys.. we now have ways of avoiding pregnancy, or STIs.

Are these 'ways' 'natural and biological'? Or are they technological?

Jebusrocks wrote:Sex is a way more natural and biological way of connecting with your partner than kissing ffs.

What? How does that even work? You don't need condoms, dental dams, spermicide or IUDs to kiss, so wouldn't that make kissing more 'natural and biological' than so-called 'safe' sex?

Some more blood, Chekov. The needle won't hurt, Chekov. Take off your shirt, Chekov. Roll over, Chekov. Breathe deeply, Chekov. Blood sample, Chekov! Marrow sample, Chekov! Skin sample, Chekov! If I live long enough... I'm going to run out of samples.

WeiWenDi wrote:a.) If you don't understand it, then who the hell gave you the authority to pass judgement on it?

Now, now...everyone has the right to judge how they like. But be aware that you will also be judged on how you judge others. Judging things you outright admit you don't understand suggests that you're less interested in actually understanding that concept and more interested in having your own opinion on it, regardless of what that opinion is.

We should all expect others to judge us on how we carry ourselves. For instance, I made a judgment about WWD about how he probably lets things bother him a bit too much. Likewise, I fully expect he has made judgments about me - hopefully at least one of them is positive!

Sex is a way more natural and biological way of connecting with your partner than kissing ffs.

Just to note, there are certainly some people have sex while having no emotional attachment to each other. But in general, kissing implies a deeper emotional attachment. I believe this is why some prostitutes and people who are having casual sex avoid kissing - to avoid emotional entanglements that complicate that particular relationship. At least, that's what I hear.

EDIT: On the final point, the point behind that is that you might consider kissing more natural emotional expression, because it's more likely to be an emotional thing than sex, which can be purely physical.

How can something that 'never applied historically, nor now', even be a 'cultural norm'? Especially an 'outdated' one?

Okay, so marriage is a 'tactic' now, not a 'norm'? So what's the goal? How can you tell if it 'doesn't work'?

Hey! I'm sorry I write really fast and don't really explain anything and just follow my own train of thought like right now ^_^

That is such terribly worded by me lol. It never "applied" (as I put it) because no one stuck to this tradition. People romanticize about marriage, but it never worked because virtually no one followed it.

It was too idealistic for people during that time, and it is too idealistic for people now.

Marriages "worked" in history because people just ignored the fact that they were sleeping on the side, or had plenty of sex before marriage. Marriage simply became a tradition people signed up for, but never adhered to its principles. This was especially true until before the Reformation.

Did many Christians during Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages have sex before marriage? Probably. We can't know for sure, but if medieval poetry is any indication, it was at least expected even if frowned-upon. Many of them probably had 'shotgun' weddings also because they knocked up their partners. But for the most part faithfulness was expected and poor people tended to follow it. If for no other reason than that they needed their wives as mutual work partners on the farm and in the

People did it even if it was 'frowned upon' it was a part of life. A good example is pre-CIvil War South, people frowned upon white owners sleeping/raping their African slaves, and there were many political discourse with ie. Jefferson(who was shamed publicly for taking on a black mistress), but virtually everyone in the South did it. Many southerners had tens of mixed children despite the "perceived" notion that it was wrong, and no one stopped them (well I guess the Civil War did haha..). Southern United States men had this romanticized view as chivalrous men with honor, and many northern women went there to get married, only to find out they were the same assholes as those in the north (even worse), and they couldn't do anything about it. This is a marriage in historical times. Yea, you're "married" and it "worked".

a.) This isn't logically connected at all to your previous statements.

True I was just pointing out how one-sided these marriages were in reality.

b.) Um, no. This is just plain ignorant.

In Byzantium a man committing adultery got twelve lashes. Having consensual sex with an unmarried woman got him six. Banging a nun or a daughter- or mother-in-law got his nose mutilated. Homosexual sex got him castrated. Incest and rape got him decapitated. Women and children who were victims (and not willing perpetrators) of sexual crime were usually let off. Similar laws prevailed in Germany and England. Rape was most definitely considered the fault of the man in the Middle Ages.

I studied Medieval law codes and their practicalities, even wrote an essay on it, and unfortunately it is true. Virtually none of these laws, even if it existed, were ever implemented unless the MAN whose wife you raped was of high rank, and it almost NEVER applied to those in the country side. In virtually all CHRISTIAN cases in western europe (I have never looked at Muslim or post-Protestant cases), it was settled in an almost Germanic way, the husband would seek revenge, either in cash form (how sick is that..) or by killing the guy. In most of these cases, he did not do this to defend his wife's honor, but to defend his own (he can't have other people raping his wife and disgracing the family name, no matter how lower class you were). Some husbands got chickens, and if you were lucky, even a cow for their troubles of having their wife raped to restore honor to himself. EDIT: I should also note that many scholars believe that Christianity did not initially start out with this ideology, but adopted it when they began "Platonizing" Christianity to better appeal to those familiar with Greek culture (ie. Eastern Roman Empire). In particular, Galen (A greek medic) believed that women did not contribute to marriage, and one day, men will be able to masturbate into special boxes (they did not know about the egg) and get rid of woman completely other than for pleasure. This was than tied by many Christian scholars with how Eve was lesser (made from Adam's rib) and it was her curiosity that led to the "Fall of Men" in Eden, forever losing that connection with God.

a.) If you don't understand it, then who the hell gave you the authority to pass judgement on it?

Because, in reality, it is the same as putting emphasis on no sex before ten dates, or whatever arbitrary points you decide. It is an arbitrary date people set. But again, you (as in everyone, i'm not trying to single you out) are the one that decide that somehow, after this set date, the sex is going to be better, which can be true for most people including myself! It just doesn't have to be marriage imo .

At some point in the future, I'm predicting there's going to be something of a children's rights revolution. And that revolution is going to come from children who don't want to be raised as functional wards of the state, or accessories in contractual relationships which haven't been structurally organised to give them any legal rights or support. Marriage, regardless of the way it has been abused in the past, has historically functioned for the legal, economic and social support of children. And for the most part it's been effective at that.

You do know that birthrates have decreased significantly over the years right in developed countries right? This has nothing to do with pre-marital sex. And as I have stated before, I do agree that marriage has its functions, I myself admitted that I would like to be married before i have children. NONE of this has anything to do with pre-marital sex. This is because it is upto the people who have sex, not the act of sex itself. Yes, setting barriers up for yourself (like marriages) can work for some people, but for many it doesn't.

Are these 'ways' 'natural and biological'? Or are they technological?

And that is why it is outdated. The biggest upside of a PROPER marriage (which, as I have stated before is very rare historically until recently) is that it makes sex somewhat safe; now we have the tools to make it safe.

What? How does that even work? You don't need condoms, dental dams, spermicide or IUDs to kiss, so wouldn't that make kissing more 'natural and biological' than so-called 'safe' sex?

[/quote]

Because it's something we as humans are programmed and wired to do biologically? Hormones that surge through our bodies since we hit puberty? I remember reading about how kissing was weirdest form of intimacy because of how weird it is biologically haha. I've never thought about it until I read about it.

Marriage is a noble concept, but unfortunately, due to how we as a species are programmed, it was an ideal people merely tuned into, but never fully accepted. I think people should choose what kind of responsibilities they wish to have, and there are certainly cases where this hurts (I remember hearing about a homeless woman who kept having babies to get funding), but that is a problem with the person, not the act itself. EDIT: You will notice that I am NOT attacking marriage, and the religion that adheres to it, but just talking about the people behind them.

Something I haven't discussed before and will now though is sex between youth. I do think that there should definitely be some form of structure for young teens before the age of 16. Sex should be somewhat advised against for teens before the age of 19 or higher, but after that, i think its really upto them.

It is curious that the Americans, who calculate so carefully on the possibilities of military victory, do not realize that in the process they are incurring deep psychological and political defeat.

Jebusrocks wrote:That is such terribly worded by me lol. It never "applied" (as I put it) because no one stuck to this tradition. People romanticize about marriage, but it never worked because virtually no one followed it.

Actually, a hell of a lot of people did. Most commoners did. That's one of the reasons why formal genealogies tend to match so well with genetic research and DNA testing. I know for a fact that about 15 generations of the women on the paternal side of my family tree were faithful enough to produce a legitimate line going all the way back past 1599, for example, and that has been confirmed with several DNA tests compared with some of my distant cousins. That's not romanticism, that's verifiable scientific fact. You can check the statistics on that; infidelity which produced children (what are called 'non-paternity events' in the scientific literature) are actually quite rare - between 1% and 5% of documented couples, and probably closer to the low end.

Jebusrocks wrote:A good example is pre-CIvil War South, people frowned upon white owners sleeping/raping their African slaves, and there were many political discourse with ie. Jefferson(who was shamed publicly for taking on a black mistress), but virtually everyone in the South did it.

That's very true. (You didn't need to tell me that, though; having read Slave and Citizen by Frank Tannenbaum on the subject was very enlightening on that score.) But it's also a historical anomaly. Black chattel slavery simply didn't exist before the 1500's Portuguese trade off the African coast, and the practice wasn't enshrined in law until the 1660's in the Americas. And it was done away with legally within 300 years of its adoption, practically everywhere it was practised.

Jebusrocks wrote:I studied Medieval law codes and their practicalities, even wrote an essay on it, and unfortunately it is true. Virtually none of these laws, even if it existed, were ever implemented unless the MAN whose wife you raped was of high rank, and it almost NEVER applied to those in the country side. In virtually all CHRISTIAN cases in western europe (I have never looked at Muslim or post-Protestant cases), it was settled in an almost Germanic way, the husband would seek revenge, either in cash form (how sick is that..) or by killing the guy.

You studied Germanic law? Then you know what the weregeld was for, yes?

In places where enforcement was a problem, and where patriarchal units often took matters into their own hands with private feuds, weregild was often a way for a commoners' court to defuse a feud before it got out of hand. Feuds could get really ugly. The woman was a full member of the family in Germanic societies, and she could very easily sway her brothers or her uncles to avenge her (not just themselves - failing to avenge a wronged sister or niece or daughter-in-law was seen as ergi and shameful); in some Viking stories she was even likely to go out and take the head of her abuser herself.

Jebusrocks wrote:I should also note that many scholars believe that Christianity did not initially start out with this ideology, but adopted it when they began "Platonizing" Christianity to better appeal to those familiar with Greek culture (ie. Eastern Roman Empire). In particular, Galen (A greek medic) believed that women did not contribute to marriage, and one day, men will be able to masturbate into special boxes (they did not know about the egg) and get rid of woman completely other than for pleasure. This was than tied by many Christian scholars with how Eve was lesser (made from Adam's rib) and it was her curiosity that led to the "Fall of Men" in Eden, forever losing that connection with God.

And do you know how many anathemas the canons of the Orthodox Church (and the Catholic Church in the West) issued against these people? The official Christian authorities were practically always on the side of the married women in cases like these, where gnostics and pseudo-ascetics railed against marriage and the rights of women to their husbands' support and sexual attention.

Jebusrocks wrote:Because, in reality, it is the same as putting emphasis on no sex before ten dates, or whatever arbitrary points you decide. It is an arbitrary date people set. But again, you (as in everyone, i'm not trying to single you out) are the one that decide that somehow, after this set date, the sex is going to be better, which can be true for most people including myself! It just doesn't have to be marriage imo .

So you're saying you do understand it now? I'm having trouble seeing where you're coming from on this.

Jebusrocks wrote:You do know that birthrates have decreased significantly over the years right in developed countries right? This has nothing to do with pre-marital sex... This is because it is upto the people who have sex, not the act of sex itself. Yes, setting barriers up for yourself (like marriages) can work for some people, but for many it doesn't.

Yes, I have. I took a master's in development econ.

And actually, it has everything to do with increased life expectancy and advanced government provisions of social care for the elderly.

The logic of two parents in a developing country is very different from the logic of two parents in a developed country. In the former, your children are your safety net. If you don't have children, and you can't work anymore in your old age, you die alone, cold and starving. Not a pleasant thought. So the idea was to have as many children as possible, and especially as many boys as possible, with the expectation that at least one of them would be able to support you when you got too old to work anymore.

But if you weren't married to the mother of your children, or if you didn't have legal guardianship in any other sense, the children were under no legal obligation to take care of you. Marriage was historically an institution designed to protect and support the weak in society - both children in their infancy, and adults in their old age. It continues to be used this way particularly in India, Africa, rural Asia and the poorer regions of Latin America. And as such, it has 'worked' for most people throughout history.

Jebusrocks wrote:And that is why it is outdated. The biggest upside of a PROPER marriage (which, as I have stated before is very rare historically until recently) is that it makes sex somewhat safe; now we have the tools to make it safe.

And like I've said before and elsewhere, these tools are sold on a lie.

Sex is a neurochemical need and a neurochemical drive; it has psychological effects that no physical barrier can render 'safe'. Most people - the majority of people, from what I gather both anecdotally and from studies - are simply not able to simply disconnect their emotions from intimate contact with their partners without suffering anxiety, existential doubt, jealousy, depression and so on. I have yet to meet even one person who was into casual sex who hadn't been sexually abused or abandoned before, and who hadn't allowed those experiences to shape their whole outlook on sex.

Jebusrocks wrote:Marriage is a noble concept, but unfortunately, due to how we as a species are programmed, it was an ideal people merely tuned into, but never fully accepted.

Okay, pop evo psych is total bullshit, in part because its exponents in the popular press like to pretend human beings are computers or machines, and that our neurochemical processes aren't plastic.

They pretend that free will doesn't matter, and that instinct always trumps experience. I have yet to see this proven rather than assumed. On the other hand, I have seen study after study after neurological study with disclaimers that brain science is still very vaguely understood, that we don't really understand all the processes that go into our decision-making, and that there's actually no such thing as a 'hardwired' behaviour that can't be circumvented or changed through habit-forming.

Marriage is a habit as well as a legal institution. It's a habit some people try really hard to build. And it's a habit people sometimes fail at or break. But it's still something as 'natural' to human life as any other form of sexual expression.

Bush Leagues wrote:For instance, I made a judgment about WWD about how he probably lets things bother him a bit too much. Likewise, I fully expect he has made judgments about me - hopefully at least one of them is positive!

Yep, I fully own that one. I do take things pretty seriously.

And actually, I think the only judgement I ever made about you is that on occasion you run your keyboard without thinking it out fully. But I do that all the time too, so no biggie!

Bush Leagues wrote:Just to note, there are certainly some people have sex while having no emotional attachment to each other. But in general, kissing implies a deeper emotional attachment. I believe this is why some prostitutes and people who are having casual sex avoid kissing - to avoid emotional entanglements that complicate that particular relationship. At least, that's what I hear.

I can believe that.

But 'implies emotional attachment' is very much not the same thing as 'not natural' or 'not biological'.